I have never at any point said that women have misunderstood what the reality of reporting rape is like.
I accept that my final paragraph in my comment at 22:52 yesterday could have been expressed much better.
In the context of this debate I would accept that scaremongering is the wrong word. I used it without thinking about it properly because it was in the comment to which I was responding. Had I considered my words more carefully I would not have used it. I understand the concerns being expressed by some women's groups about this decision representing a change in the law which will open up the possibility of more victims being questioned about their sexual history. I do not share that concern as, given the precedents quoted in the appeal court judgement, it appears that the decision does not break new ground. However, I don't think this particular provision has been used in a high profile case before so it is possible we may see more attempts to make use of it. So I am concerned that we may see a rise in such cases. It is important that the courts hold the line as to what is admissible so that we don't get a flood of victims being questioned about their sexual history. I have also seen some concerns expressed which appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the case, most commonly the belief that the victim accused Evans of rape. So I think some concerns are misplaced but I think there are valid concerns. Scaremongering, however, is the wrong word and I apologise unreservedly for using it.
There is evidence that the 6% figure is misunderstood by some people (men and women) and that this puts off some rape victims from reporting. I don't for one moment suggest that the 6% figure should not be used. It is a valid figure. But we need to be clear about what it means. And we need to be clear to rape victims that if their case gets to court there is around a 50% chance that their attacker will be convicted (I think it is actually a little better than 50% if you exclude cases thrown out by the judge but I can't immediately put my hands on the current figure). One can, of course, argue that even 50% is not good enough. I would tend to agree. I don't want to live in a world where anyone accused of rape is automatically found guilty. But I would like to see a higher success rate.
There are obvious reasons why victims withdraw from the process. There are also less obvious reasons. We should certainly figure out how to deal with the obvious reasons, although I don't have any answers. I would like to know more about the less obvious reasons. Anecdotal evidence is useful but no substitute for proper research. I am aware of some research on the subject but I am not convinced there has been enough. I would like to get to the point where every single case reported to the police gets at least as far as the CPS. That is unlikely to happen as there will always be cases where the police are unable to identify the attacker or unable to get enough evidence but I believe we should aim high. To get there we need to understand all the reasons that victims withdraw from the process. You may think we already know everything and you may be right, but I personally tend to the view that there is always more to know.
I would never, ever tell any woman that her concerns about reporting rape are unjustified. It is a horrible, degrading, dehumanising process which will force you to relive the experience again and again. And if you get to court you will have to relive it again and then you will be cross examined by someone trying to pick holes in your account. Even if you go through all that your attacker may still walk free. Personally my prime motivation is that I want to see the bastards off the streets. All of them. That won't happen if victims don't push all the way through the process. I would therefore like all victims to report the attack and stick with the process. But I fully understand any victim that doesn't want to put herself through it.
Those of us who have served on juries know they don't work like that
I know they don't. I think most of those who work in criminal law know juries don't really work like that but the legal system maintains the fiction. I am well aware that one plausible explanation of the original verdict is that it was a compromise between those members of the jury who wanted to convict both and those who wanted to acquit both. There is, of course, no evidence that is what happened but it is certainly possible.
Concerns about the neutrality of witnesses are mentioned, but again we don't really know why we shouldn't be concerned.
That is always a concern in any criminal case. You get the police officer who suppresses or invents evidence to secure a conviction. You get forensic scientists behaving similarly. Then there is the witness who wants to sell their story to the press or claim the reward put up by the prosecution or the defence. And so it goes on. Very few witnesses are really neutral. Without going into all the ins and outs, in general the courts will only exclude relevant evidence if it is unfairly prejudicial to the accused or if there is specific legislation preventing its use. Given the requirements of the ECHR around fair trials it is difficult for the courts to do anything else. It is up to the jury to listen to the arguments and decided whether witnesses are credible. Juries will, of course, get it wrong sometimes. I'm afraid that isn't very reassuring but it is how the criminal law has worked for a very long time.
no arguments have been advanced to explain why defendants wouldn't be encouraged to use this defence strategy in other cases, so no, I still don't understand why this case doesn't set a precedent
It does not set a precedent because the precedent was already set in the playground case referred to in the judgement. This case simply followed that precedent. One can argue that the precedent is wrong or even that the law is wrong but it is there and would still be there even if this case had not happened.
This is a high profile case and I'm sure some other defendants, having seen it, will try to follow. It is important that the courts hold the line as to what constitutes evidence that is relevant and capable of belief (not the same as saying it is credible - that is a decision for the jury). How judges instruct the jury about such evidence is also important. So, although I don't think this decision sets a new precedent, I do agree there is a concern.